PDA

View Full Version : Dodgers offer Hunter $100 Mil. over 6 years!


twinsuck1
11-21-2007, 04:05 PM
George Offman just reported on The Score that The Dodgers have made an offer of $100 Million over 6 years to Hunter. Is Hunter worth that?

Rocky Soprano
11-21-2007, 04:09 PM
For that much, they can have him.

ChiWavDave
11-21-2007, 04:09 PM
plain and simple no. I'd rather have chunky AJones for 3yr 36Mil and focus on adding another cabrera to the left side of the infield.

infohawk
11-21-2007, 04:11 PM
If that's true, it's absolutely insane! That's almost $17 million a year, with a contract that takes him pretty darn close to age 40. I don't know why he would turn that down. It's a lot of money and a major market.

jenn2080
11-21-2007, 04:12 PM
As I said before I do not see Torii Hunter in a Sox uniform.

Lukin13
11-21-2007, 04:13 PM
Is Andruw interested in a 2 or 3 year deal as I see posted on here everyday???

If so, that is a no brainer... sign him to two years and in all reality you are on the hook for the entire salary for 2008. If things don't work out, or the Sox are struggling in '09 he has to be tradeable for at the very least his salary.

But, with that being said I cannot imagine that if Hunter can get 6 years 100+ that Jones is gonna sign for 3/36. Hell, I'd rather give Jones 2/36 than Tori 6/100.

jsg-07
11-21-2007, 04:15 PM
At what point does Kenny just say screw all of this and make Rowand an offer before these guys are both gone?? Or before Rowand feels like he is our "second choice" and says screw it and signs with someone else?

Don't get me wrong, no money involved, I would much rather have hunter, but all things considered, can't we just make Rowand a reasonable offer and move on to the bullpen / LF???

LITTLE NELL
11-21-2007, 04:18 PM
At what point does Kenny just say screw all of this and make Rowand an offer before these guys are both gone?? Or before Rowand feels like he is our "second choice" and sais screw it and signs with someone else?

Don't get me wrong, no money involved, I would much rather have hunter, but all things considered, can't we just make Rowand a reasonable offer and move on to the bullpen / LF???
I agree with you, I want Rowand back where he belongs. We did win a WS with him in CF.

StillMissOzzie
11-21-2007, 04:19 PM
If that's true, then Hunter aught to take the money and not look back, before they come to their senses and change their mind. The Sox would be even nuttier to match that offer, and I hope that they don't.

SMO
:gulp:

DickAllen72
11-21-2007, 04:19 PM
At what point does Kenny just say screw all of this and make Rowand an offer before these guys are both gone??
If the Dodgers are truly offering Hunter $17M per year, I'd say the time to make Rowand an offer is now.

But don't insult him either. Offer him $12M for 6 years.

ChiSoxGirl
11-21-2007, 04:19 PM
With that kind of offer, me thinks Hunter has left Chicago before he even arrived. And honestly, he can go for that insane amount of money; he's not worth it, in my opinion.

twinsuck1
11-21-2007, 04:23 PM
George Offman also said that the Dodgers are trying to get Johan Santana. This I would not mind just so we get him out of our division.

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 04:24 PM
Shoot, I mean, you can be a GM and actually try to sign free agents to market-relevant deals and by talking them into buying into your system and philosophy.

Or you can be a GM by slinging money around like you were a monkey and it was poop.

It's quite obvious what's going on with Ned C right now

"me no want work for player. me want centerfielder! me get centerfielder!"

Navarro's Talent
11-21-2007, 04:26 PM
Wow, that is way too pricey for Hunter. I want him on the Sox, but I'd rather KW not get involved in a bidding war that might be getting out of control. I wasn't expecting any team to dish out that kind of money for Hunter.

Navarro's Talent
11-21-2007, 04:28 PM
George Offman also said that the Dodgers are trying to get Johan Santana. This I would not mind just so we get him out of our division.

I'd be more than happy to see Santana pitching in the National League.

spiffie
11-21-2007, 04:32 PM
Shoot, I mean, you can be a GM and actually try to sign free agents to market-relevant deals and by talking them into buying into your system and philosophy.

Or you can be a GM by slinging money around like you were a monkey and it was poop.

It's quite obvious what's going on with Ned C right now

"me no want work for player. me want centerfielder! me get centerfielder!"
If you have decided a guy is your #1 need and #1 priority, it seems like its probably not worth haggling over a million here or a million there. The Dodgers especially seem in a good position with a lot of young guys they expect to be taking over (or already in positions with the MLB team), so if those guys will be relatively cheap, why not guarantee you get your guy, instead of missing out because you wanted to save a buck? Maybe you have to cut a million or two from your budget, the equivalent of downgrading from Juan Uribe to Alex Cintron as your backup SS, and in return you get your CF filled with your #1 choice.

ilsox7
11-21-2007, 04:35 PM
If you have decided a guy is your #1 need and #1 priority, it seems like its probably not worth haggling over a million here or a million there. The Dodgers especially seem in a good position with a lot of young guys they expect to be taking over (or already in positions with the MLB team), so if those guys will be relatively cheap, why not guarantee you get your guy, instead of missing out because you wanted to save a buck? Maybe you have to cut a million or two from your budget, the equivalent of downgrading from Juan Uribe to Alex Cintron as your backup SS, and in return you get your CF filled with your #1 choice.

The difference between 6 years / $100MM and 5 years / $75-80MM is a lot more than a million or two here and there.

fusillirob1983
11-21-2007, 04:36 PM
They can have him.

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 04:38 PM
If you have decided a guy is your #1 need and #1 priority, it seems like its probably not worth haggling over a million here or a million there. The Dodgers especially seem in a good position with a lot of young guys they expect to be taking over (or already in positions with the MLB team), so if those guys will be relatively cheap, why not guarantee you get your guy, instead of missing out because you wanted to save a buck? Maybe you have to cut a million or two from your budget, the equivalent of downgrading from Juan Uribe to Alex Cintron as your backup SS, and in return you get your CF filled with your #1 choice.


There's a difference between giving a guy a generous deal and giving a 34 year old CF 6 years at 100 million

KyWhiSoxFan
11-21-2007, 04:42 PM
If that report is true, Hunter will be playing for LA. Period. At that price, that is fine. I would rather the Sox put the money into Miguel Cabrera.

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 04:43 PM
That's a ridiculous deal to have fall in his lap. He'd be stupid not to take it.

I bet never once in his wildest dreams did Hunter dream he'd be looking at a 6 year 100 million dollar deal.

Frontman
11-21-2007, 04:46 PM
That kind of money, for an aging CF who still can go?

100 mil is kinda crazy talk. A 6 year deal is obscene for his age.

kjhanson
11-21-2007, 04:58 PM
plain and simple no. I'd rather have chunky AJones for 3yr 36Mil and focus on adding another cabrera to the left side of the infield.

Andruw Jones at $12mm a year, and adding Miguel Cabrera? Where do I sign up? Everybody shows the lineup with Hunter and Cabrera and they drool over it. Here's your real 3-6: Cabrera, Thome, Konerko, Jones. Those guys could knock in 500 runs combined; that is assuming there would be enough for Paulie and Andruw.

AzureJazzMan
11-21-2007, 04:59 PM
And just like that (snapping fingers here) there goes any idea of having Hunter on the South Side.

Last year Hendry and the Flubs wrecked the market price for OF (Soriano), and the Giants did the same for SP (Zito)...I was wondering who was going to wreck the market this year...Thank you Ned Colletti, you have helped to increase ticket prices nationwide, due to the cost of free agency. :mad:

I again predict...Aaron Roward will be back patrolling CF for the ChiSox and it will be announced tomorrow, which just so happens to be the day that he was traded in the first place.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

spiffie
11-21-2007, 05:00 PM
There's a difference between giving a guy a generous deal and giving a 34 year old CF 6 years at 100 million
How much is there really. If he's justifying a 5 yr/75-80 million contract, what's the worst that happens? He doesn't play well in year 6? Oh well, they'll live with one year of a bad contract. But seriously, if he plays like crap after year 1 or two, that contract is an abomination regardless of 5 or 6 years and regardless of 15 or 16 million per year. If it makes sense for your team's particular situation, what makes that extra year and extra 1 million a year so objectionable?

jsg-07
11-21-2007, 05:06 PM
How much is there really. If he's justifying a 5 yr/75-80 million contract, what's the worst that happens? He doesn't play well in year 6? Oh well, they'll live with one year of a bad contract. But seriously, if he plays like crap after year 1 or two, that contract is an abomination regardless of 5 or 6 years and regardless of 15 or 16 million per year. If it makes sense for your team's particular situation, what makes that extra year and extra 1 million a year so objectionable?

I understand what you are saying completely, but then where does it end? Why not 7 years 115 mil?? I think most of us were somewhat scared of five years as it is, but were willing to accept it. I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Madvora
11-21-2007, 05:12 PM
Well, here comes Rowand.

spiffie
11-21-2007, 05:12 PM
I understand what you are saying completely, but then where does it end? Why not 7 years 115 mil?? I think most of us were somewhat scarred of five years as it is, but were willing to accept it. I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
We were scared of it because of what we know (or think we know) of our team's situation. If we had more young (and cheap) players able to provide us flexibility for the next few years, or felt like our team was likely to increase revenues enough that this contract would not be onerous, we might think differently.

I wouldn't want to see the Sox make that kind of investment in one guy simply because of our team's situation. From the little I know of the Dodgers, they seem in a position where such an investment carries an acceptable risk for the possible reward it brings.

Frontman
11-21-2007, 05:17 PM
I'd be more than happy to see Santana pitching in the National League.

I think most Sox fans will be willing to throw money into the Dodgers coffers to see this deal done. :D:

munchman33
11-21-2007, 05:18 PM
Well, here comes Rowand.


Yeah, I'm sure Texas won't panic and offer Rowand $75 million.

Here comes Corey Patterson. :(:

soxyess
11-21-2007, 05:19 PM
If Hunter signs this contract doesnt it automatically raise the bar for Rowand and Jones?

WizardsofOzzie
11-21-2007, 05:19 PM
:rowand

Ahhhemmm

Goose
11-21-2007, 05:24 PM
Well, here comes Rowand.

Thank God! Welcome back!

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 05:24 PM
How much is there really. If he's justifying a 5 yr/75-80 million contract, what's the worst that happens? He doesn't play well in year 6? Oh well, they'll live with one year of a bad contract. But seriously, if he plays like crap after year 1 or two, that contract is an abomination regardless of 5 or 6 years and regardless of 15 or 16 million per year. If it makes sense for your team's particular situation, what makes that extra year and extra 1 million a year so objectionable?

That's the point--they're just flinging money at him like it's monkey ****.

It's lazy GMing--hey let's target our guy and just throw a ****load of money at him so he'd be stupid to turn us down--

that way we don't have to think about what he's really worth, don't have to worry about other options, and don't have to present an argument why he should come here.

But yeah, aside from that it's totally no big deal to overjump the next biggest deal by like 15 million and not even consider the length of the contract...you're absolutely right:rolleyes:

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 05:25 PM
We were scared of it because of what we know (or think we know) of our team's situation. If we had more young (and cheap) players able to provide us flexibility for the next few years, or felt like our team was likely to increase revenues enough that this contract would not be onerous, we might think differently.

I wouldn't want to see the Sox make that kind of investment in one guy simply because of our team's situation. From the little I know of the Dodgers, they seem in a position where such an investment carries an acceptable risk for the possible reward it brings.

Not really--they're not the Yankees. Their payroll isn't infinite.

How many free agents do they really go out and acquire.

Ned Colletti's an idiot of a GM and this is exhibit A. He's almost as bad a GM as Jim Hendry in this respect (just flinging money at players)

AzureJazzMan
11-21-2007, 05:26 PM
If Hunter signs this contract doesnt it automatically raise the bar for Rowand and Jones?

Yes it would, however, Hunter hasn't agreed to the deal yet.

So KW could try to convince Aaron that it is a bogus offer. Tell him that he was going to try to get both Torii and himself (meaning Rowand). Then get the contract done before Hunter agrees to his deal....It could work :redneck

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 05:32 PM
even if hunter doesn't take the deal, it's already inflated the market

kobo
11-21-2007, 05:45 PM
A 34 yr old CF who has spent the majority of his career playing on artificial turf is not worth 6 years and $100 million. I wasn't keen on the Sox signing him to a 5 year $75-80 million deal, so LA can have him if they want. Years 3-6 of that deal will be bad once his body starts to break down; and they won't be able to move him to DH when that happens.

Huisj
11-21-2007, 05:52 PM
So much for the cries of collusion from the players association a couple of weeks ago. Looks like things are about to go nuts now that ARod has signed.

I agree, 6 years for $100 million is insane for a guy the age and ability of Torii Hunter. He's a very good player, but not a superstar, and he's not young. Not worth it.

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 05:55 PM
So much for the cries of collusion from the players association a couple of weeks ago. Looks like things are about to go nuts now that ARod has signed.

I agree, 6 years for $100 million is insane for a guy the age and ability of Torii Hunter. He's a very good player, but not a superstar, and he's not young. Not worth it.

I would have been slightly disappointed if the sox signed him at at 5 years/75...even though that's the going rate it seems. 6 years 100 is asinine

KRS1
11-21-2007, 06:02 PM
Well Torii talked about how he was going to be looking at farm teams and the Dodgers have one of the best in baseball. They have a really bright future there, as does the rest of the NL West, and this contract should just be icing on the cake. The Dodgers already have a stacked OF with Kemp, Ethier, Young(and a few other young guys still in the minors with bright futures), but those guys are all corner OFs, and they want to upgrade over Pierre's D in CF(but are apparently committed to keeping Juan for whatever reason, maybe because they would rather pay him to play there than pay a huge chunk of his contract for him to play elsewhere), so it makes sense. Maybe they could give us one of their young studs that they don't have room for, because all three of those guys should be starting.

A.T. Money
11-21-2007, 06:09 PM
I'd be more than happy to see Santana pitching in the National League.

I'd be even more happy to see Santana in a Sox uniform.

duke of dorwood
11-21-2007, 06:15 PM
He Gone

The Dodgers have just become the Cubs West

Hope there's a plan C-because we wont get Rowand either, now:angry:

gr8mexico
11-21-2007, 06:18 PM
A 34 yr old CF who has spent the majority of his career playing on artificial turf is not worth 6 years and $100 million. I wasn't keen on the Sox signing him to a 5 year $75-80 million deal, so LA can have him if they want. Years 3-6 of that deal will be bad once his body starts to break down; and they won't be able to move him to DH when that happens.
First off Hunter is 32 years old. Everyone in here cant get that right. Second no one else is reporting this and that's why George Offman is a nobody and third the Sox should consider Andruw Jones. He's 30 years old and 2 years ago he hit 50 HR's and is a gold glover winner

chisox77
11-21-2007, 06:23 PM
I hate to give up on the idea of Hunter in CF for the White Sox. However, if the Dodgers want him that bad, the Sox really can't compete with that offer, even if they try to match it (which they won't). Six years is too much. I would accept five at 15-16 million, but this is insane. Too bad, but perhaps there is another direction the Sox can take.

Hunter would be a fool to refuse that offer from LA. Big market, excellent organizatin with lots of winning tradition, and he would become a bigger star there, no doubt. I trust that KW can figure out another way to go with this. We'll just have to see . . .

:cool:

btrain929
11-21-2007, 06:25 PM
2 years, 36 million for Andruw Jones. Go get him, KW

GregO23
11-21-2007, 06:27 PM
I say we go after Andruw Jones now. Also, I say we talk to the Orioles and see what the price on Roberts and Bedard would be. Maybe if we took Baez' contract, we can try to do an offer of Fields, Richar, Danks, Floyd for Bedard, Roberts, Baez. That solves 2 problems with one stone. We also do not get that much older, but our salary goes up a bit...Roberts-4 M, Baez-5 M, Bedard-4 M...I think the trade makes sense for both teams. Orioles probablywant to get younger, and this gives the ability to trade Mora and save another 7M

The lineup will look like...
2B Roberts
SS Cabrera
DH Thome
1B Konerko
CF Jones
RF Dye
C Pierzynski
3B Crede
LF Owens/Pablo/Stewart

Bedard-Vasquez-Buehrle-Contreas-Gio/Broadway

btrain929
11-21-2007, 06:35 PM
I say we go after Andruw Jones now. Also, I say we talk to the Orioles and see what the price on Roberts and Bedard would be. Maybe if we took Baez' contract, we can try to do an offer of Fields, Richar, Danks, Floyd for Bedard, Roberts, Baez. That solves 2 problems with one stone. We also do not get that much older, but our salary goes up a bit...Roberts-4 M, Baez-5 M, Bedard-4 M...I think the trade makes sense for both teams. Orioles probablywant to get younger, and this gives the ability to trade Mora and save another 7M

The lineup will look like...
2B Roberts
SS Cabrera
DH Thome
1B Konerko
CF Jones
RF Dye
C Pierzynski
3B Crede
LF Owens/Pablo/Stewart

Bedard-Vasquez-Buehrle-Contreas-Gio/Broadway

2 things:
1) It might be just me, but I'm not impressed at all with Shannon Stewart and his past numbers.
2) I agree we should go after Brian Roberts and see what his bounty will be, but Bedard will require a huge package, probably bigger than the one you offered up.

Paulwny
11-21-2007, 06:44 PM
If Hunter signs this contract doesnt it automatically raise the bar for Rowand and Jones?

Yep, Rowand and Jones will sit back and wait to see the amount and yrs Hunter receives. Their agents will then contact all the losers in the Hunter chase.
Face it people, the price of poker goes up every year.
If you don't pay you'll have to trade to obtain players.

Brian26
11-21-2007, 07:06 PM
A 34 yr old CF who has spent the majority of his career playing on artificial turf is not worth 6 years and $100 million.

There's a difference between giving a guy a generous deal and giving a 34 year old CF 6 years at 100 million

Hunter is 32, for what its worth.

Brian26
11-21-2007, 07:09 PM
Also, I say we talk to the Orioles and see what the price on Roberts and Bedard would be. Maybe if we took Baez' contract, we can try to do an offer of Fields, Richar, Danks, Floyd for Bedard, Roberts, Baez.

I don't know if you can give up on both Danks and Floyd. At least one of those guys has to stay. Otherwise, the #5 hole becomes huge, even worse than 2004.

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 07:26 PM
Hunter is 32, for what its worth.

Yeah. That's my bad

:redface:

doesn't really change my position though

Brian26
11-21-2007, 07:42 PM
doesn't really change my position though

And I don't disagree with you.

I think the investment of this much money in Hunter is unwise.

GregO23
11-21-2007, 07:57 PM
2 things:
1) It might be just me, but I'm not impressed at all with Shannon Stewart and his past numbers.
2) I agree we should go after Brian Roberts and see what his bounty will be, but Bedard will require a huge package, probably bigger than the one you offered up.

Add Aardsma or Sisco, even sweeney who cares lol...

Roberts/Bedard/Baez
for
Fields/Danks/Richar/Floyd/Aardsma

This solves 2.5 problems!

GregO23
11-21-2007, 07:58 PM
I don't know if you can give up on both Danks and Floyd. At least one of those guys has to stay. Otherwise, the #5 hole becomes huge, even worse than 2004.

You dont give up on Danks and Floyd, you just get better players lol. Who is Danks and Floyd when you get a Bedard. Throw in Egbert, Broadway for Gio and we are fine...at the 5!

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 08:05 PM
And I don't disagree with you.

I think the investment of this much money in Hunter is unwise.

Not just the money, but the years.

Imo, you don't give six years to someone unless it's one of the following conditions:

a.) you're resigning him and it's a good PR move to keep a fan favorite their whole career with your team.

b.) It's a young talent who is a smart be to keep performing well, a la Pujols or Cabrera or David Wright when they come up for FA (Pujols is just hypothetical, since he won't be a FA till he's like 30)

It's real sketch to me to sign someone off the market for 6 years

Daver
11-21-2007, 08:12 PM
Not just the money, but the years.

Imo, you don't give six years to someone unless it's one of the following conditions:

a.) you're resigning him and it's a good PR move to keep a fan favorite their whole career with your team.

b.) It's a young talent who is a smart be to keep performing well, a la Pujols or Cabrera or David Wright when they come up for FA (Pujols is just hypothetical, since he won't be a FA till he's like 30)

It's real sketch to me to sign someone off the market for 6 years

I would have signed Alex Rodriguez for ten years, the revenue he will bring in as he approaches the HR record will offset his contract.

duke of dorwood
11-21-2007, 08:13 PM
This guy's career figures dont come close to warranting this salary. We gave it our best shot-I can live with that. Now lets get CF filled.

CLR01
11-21-2007, 08:15 PM
Add Aardsma or Sisco, even sweeney who cares lol...

Roberts/Bedard/Baez
for
Fields/Danks/Richar/Floyd/Aardsma

This solves 2.5 problems!

I'm sure Baltimore's GM is waiting impatiently by the phone for KW to call and offer that one up. After that goes through maybe KW can send Crede of to NY for ARod and $260 mil.

dwalteroo
11-21-2007, 08:17 PM
I don't know if you can give up on both Danks and Floyd. At least one of those guys has to stay. Otherwise, the #5 hole becomes huge, even worse than 2004.

Agreed, and I don't want to give up Fields unless we absolutely have to. Upgrading at second isn't worth Fields...

duke of dorwood
11-21-2007, 08:22 PM
With the Hunter thing going away, there will be a real urge to overpay to acquire what we need. I hope there is restraint. The greatest thing about free agency is adding by addition, I do not like trades

GregO23
11-21-2007, 08:24 PM
I'm sure Baltimore's GM is waiting impatiently by the phone for KW to call and offer that one up. After that goes through maybe KW can send Crede of to NY for ARod and $260 mil.
Thats only because of Bedard, but we can definately get Roberts fairly cheap imo. Richar and someone else might be enough imo.

getonbckthr
11-21-2007, 08:25 PM
I would rather try to do a Crede for Pierre deal instead of giving Rowand 14-15 million a year. Unforunately I have a feeling between the rediculous Hunter offer and his unwillingness to negotiate with Boras clients Kenny is gonna panic give Rowand a rediculous contract and put this franchise in financial hell for the next 5 years.

getonbckthr
11-21-2007, 08:26 PM
Thats only because of Bedard, but we can definately get Roberts fairly cheap imo. Richar and someone else might be enough imo.
And that would be stupid. Richar will be better than Roberts and might be as good this season.

champagne030
11-21-2007, 08:35 PM
I don't know if you can give up on both Danks and Floyd. At least one of those guys has to stay. Otherwise, the #5 hole becomes huge, even worse than 2004.

The proposed offer wouldn't even get Baltimore to sniff. That said, our current rotation has Floyd as #5 and sadly he is the black hole all over again.

PorkChopExpress
11-21-2007, 08:46 PM
I would rather try to do a Crede for Pierre deal instead of giving Rowand 14-15 million a year. Unforunately I have a feeling between the rediculous Hunter offer and his unwillingness to negotiate with Boras clients Kenny is gonna panic give Rowand a rediculous contract and put this franchise in financial hell for the next 5 years.

This, unfortunately, sounds more like where we will be headed if this offer is accurate. Jones will get the same if not more because he is a Borass client and that always happens. Rowand will get what he was asking for at least , 6yrs/$84mil I beleive. And the White Sox will have Pierre in LF leading off and Owens in CF.

Other CF options are Crisp via trade. And dare I say it one more time, Elijah Dukes. Oh well, this could all be nothing. I can't wait to hear the final decision.

jabrch
11-21-2007, 08:48 PM
Buh Bye Torii!

ndgt10
11-21-2007, 08:53 PM
And the White Sox will have Pierre in LF leading off and Owens in CF.
:puking:

PalehosePlanet
11-21-2007, 08:55 PM
Torii Hunter for a 100 Million?? No thanks, you could probably get BOTH Rowand and Andruw Jones for about 130-140.

fquaye149
11-21-2007, 08:57 PM
I would have signed Alex Rodriguez for ten years, the revenue he will bring in as he approaches the HR record will offset his contract.

That would be the final exception--the A-Rod exception.

But since it's just that one guy and he's well locked up...well, you know

twinsuck1
11-21-2007, 09:03 PM
I have been looking everywhere for something to try and confirm this offer George Offman reported on the Score and I can't find anything. I did find this thread Intersting on The Dodgers forums however, Take a look --> http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163678

Sounds like They want Andruw and DEFINATELY not Rowand...

DickAllen72
11-21-2007, 09:04 PM
I would rather try to do a Crede for Pierre deal instead of giving Rowand 14-15 million a year.
Please no.

the1tab
11-21-2007, 09:04 PM
There is a third option on the trade market that I would like to see explored... one that involves three teams.

The White Sox appear to be willing to move one of their 3B if the price is right. I'd say we agree that a CF/LF that can hit & run is at the top of the list, and if the rumor about LA is correct, Torri might not be coming any time soon. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Aaron is headed elsewhere as well.

There is another team that is not only in the market for a new 3B, but has one with an expiring contract NOT REPRESENTED BY SCOTT BORAS that might be willing to be a middleman for a larger deal.

Enter the St Louis Cardinals.

Scott Rolen apparently doesn't like LaRussa and wants out. There are a number of teams more interested in Rolen than Crede. I would argue that, if you're going to have an injury prone 3B in a walk year, you'd prefer to have the younger of the two. Why not see if St Louis would consider moving Rolen to someone for an OF (Baldelli?) that would head to the Sox for Crede? perhaps a few AAA arms move back and forth in the process, but all that to say that the Sox could solve the issue of Crede being a domino waiting for Rolen to be dealt by essentially finding someone who wants Rolen for an OF and moving Crede in the same motion, thereby killing 3 birds with one heckuva stone.

Also note: if Eckstein doesn't return to St Louis, they might also be in the market for a new SS (cough... Uribe... cough)

Any thoughts?

PalehosePlanet
11-21-2007, 09:13 PM
There is a third option on the trade market that I would like to see explored... one that involves three teams.

The White Sox appear to be willing to move one of their 3B if the price is right. I'd say we agree that a CF/LF that can hit & run is at the top of the list, and if the rumor about LA is correct, Torri might not be coming any time soon. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Aaron is headed elsewhere as well.

There is another team that is not only in the market for a new 3B, but has one with an expiring contract NOT REPRESENTED BY SCOTT BORAS that might be willing to be a middleman for a larger deal.

Enter the St Louis Cardinals.

Scott Rolen apparently doesn't like LaRussa and wants out. There are a number of teams more interested in Rolen than Crede. I would argue that, if you're going to have an injury prone 3B in a walk year, you'd prefer to have the younger of the two. Why not see if St Louis would consider moving Rolen to someone for an OF (Baldelli?) that would head to the Sox for Crede? perhaps a few AAA arms move back and forth in the process, but all that to say that the Sox could solve the issue of Crede being a domino waiting for Rolen to be dealt by essentially finding someone who wants Rolen for an OF and moving Crede in the same motion, thereby killing 3 birds with one heckuva stone.

Also note: if Eckstein doesn't return to St Louis, they might also be in the market for a new SS (cough... Uribe... cough)

Any thoughts?

If Baldelli can pass his physical and is healthy I'm all for it. He can lead-off, hit 3rd, wherever. Also his contract is very managable; something like 5 years 28 million remaining (or 4/22 with an option...something like that.) If that's the case then we can sign a cheaper high avg. hitter w/good pop in Jose Guillen top play left for 2-3 years (he has a cannon for an arm as well.)

WLL1855
11-21-2007, 09:19 PM
... And dare I say it one more time, Elijah Dukes...

That is exactly what we don't need. A mental midget who thinks he needs to threaten his kid's mother. I'll be amazed if he plays another game in a major league uniform.

the1tab
11-21-2007, 09:19 PM
If Baldelli can pass his physical and is healthy I'm all for it. He can lead-off, hit 3rd, wherever. Also his contract is very managable; something like 5 years 28 million remaining (or 4/22 with an option...something like that.) If that's the case then we can sign a cheaper high avg. hitter w/good pop in Jose Guillen top play left for 2-3 years (he has a cannon for an arm as well.)

I'm just going to play the devil's advocate here...

If _______ can pass their physical, I'm all for it.

A) Rolen
B) Crede
C) Baldelli
D) All of the Above

If Crede, Rolen and Baldelli are all huge question marks, and we can unload a) a Boras client and b) Juan Uribe, all in one shot... does anyone care if we get 162 games from Rocco next year? We would have a great talent under contract to play LF for at least 4 more years for relatively cheap and we would be rid of two headaches (and 1 backache).

Again, just playing the devil's advocate on this one... I look forward to further discussion

PalehosePlanet
11-21-2007, 09:36 PM
I'm just going to play the devil's advocate here...

If _______ can pass their physical, I'm all for it.

A) Rolen
B) Crede
C) Baldelli
D) All of the Above

If Crede, Rolen and Baldelli are all huge question marks, and we can unload a) a Boras client and b) Juan Uribe, all in one shot... does anyone care if we get 162 games from Rocco next year? We would have a great talent under contract to play LF for at least 4 more years for relatively cheap and we would be rid of two headaches (and 1 backache).

Again, just playing the devil's advocate on this one... I look forward to further discussion

You're right, everyone is taking a chance, but with the player we're receiving, Baldelli, being the youngest, cheapest, most contract friendly, and most talented of the three. Don't forget though, he is a solid CF, not LF; TB moved Crawford to LF and kept him there for a reason.

And yes, sooner or later he'll be healthy for a full year.

I do think we would either have to eat part of Juan's salary (if he were to be invloved) or throw in a solid prospect, since TB would not receive anyone with a lenghty contract in this deal and could have zero to show for it next winter.

the1tab
11-21-2007, 09:42 PM
I do think we would either have to eat part of Juan's salary (if he were to be invloved) or throw in a solid prospect, since TB would not receive anyone with a lenghty contract in this deal and could have zero to show for it next winter.

Isn't this the point with Tampa? Don't they have 40 young, talented OFs so they're trying to make room for some of them? And wouldn't an expiring contract on a solid veteran leader (Rolen) give them the cap space to try to keep Kazmir in a year or two with an extension? This would appear at the surface to be a sellout by Tampa, but they're trying to get their young studs on the field and, nothing against Baldelli... he isn't Delmon Young.

Daver
11-21-2007, 09:50 PM
Isn't this the point with Tampa? Don't they have 40 young, talented OFs so they're trying to make room for some of them? And wouldn't an expiring contract on a solid veteran leader (Rolen) give them the cap space to try to keep Kazmir in a year or two with an extension? This would appear at the surface to be a sellout by Tampa, but they're trying to get their young studs on the field and, nothing against Baldelli... he isn't Delmon Young.

There is no salary cap in baseball.

the1tab
11-21-2007, 09:56 PM
i was thinking the self-imposed cheap ceiling they have on themselves

Lip Man 1
11-21-2007, 11:01 PM
First off it's George Offman, the guy who was suspended for breaking an incorrect story so I think you have to get a more 'reliable' source.

However if in fact this is true, then I agree the Sox need to be looking at other options starting with Rowand.

I guess the "market correction" that some were hoping (praying) for isn't going to happen...not this year! LOL

Lip

Hitmen77
11-21-2007, 11:13 PM
I have been looking everywhere for something to try and confirm this offer George Offman reported on the Score and I can't find anything. I did find this thread Intersting on The Dodgers forums however, Take a look --> http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163678

Sounds like They want Andruw and DEFINATELY not Rowand...

Yeah, but that's the beautiful thing about WSI....first we get a ton of posts assuming Hunter coming here is pretty much a done deal without any credible confirmation that he's made a decision and then a ton of posts assuming he's already signed with the Dodgers when LA's supposed offer is only being reported by one guy at this point.

It might very well be possible that we don't know what really going on out there as far as offers, etc. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

Brian26
11-21-2007, 11:13 PM
If Baldelli can pass his physical and is healthy I'm all for it. He can lead-off, hit 3rd, wherever.

I know you were just trying to make a point that Baldelli is versatile, but the day Badelli is ever considered as the number three hitter in the Sox lineup is the day this team is in a lot of trouble. That looks like 1988 all over again.

cws05champ
11-21-2007, 11:24 PM
Isn't this the point with Tampa? Don't they have 40 young, talented OFs so they're trying to make room for some of them? And wouldn't an expiring contract on a solid veteran leader (Rolen) give them the cap space to try to keep Kazmir in a year or two with an extension? This would appear at the surface to be a sellout by Tampa, but they're trying to get their young studs on the field and, nothing against Baldelli... he isn't Delmon Young.
However, the Rays also have a backlog at 3B as well with Iwamura, and Evan Longoria ready to step in.

tstrike2000
11-21-2007, 11:31 PM
Dayn Perry may actually be right for once about Hunter going to the Dodgers. Of course it took a price that no man in their right mind would turn down.

Soxfest
11-22-2007, 12:03 AM
The money and years for Hunter are way to rich and long for Sox to waste any more time.

spiffie
11-22-2007, 12:09 AM
That's the point--they're just flinging money at him like it's monkey ****.

It's lazy GMing--hey let's target our guy and just throw a ****load of money at him so he'd be stupid to turn us down--

that way we don't have to think about what he's really worth, don't have to worry about other options, and don't have to present an argument why he should come here.

But yeah, aside from that it's totally no big deal to overjump the next biggest deal by like 15 million and not even consider the length of the contract...you're absolutely right:rolleyes:
If the rumors are true that the Rangers are going to six years and $90 million then they've offered him about 1.5 million more per year than the next closest competitor. If the next best offer is 80 million for 5 years then they've taken the existing deal and said "we'll go one more year" and added a few million to make the number round.

Exactly where is the objective value on what he, or any player is worth? Torii Hunter is, by most observers opinions, the best player available in the FA market this year (now that Rodriguez is off the market). What is the best player you can get, without giving up any of your coveted young talent, worth to a team? And how exactly is it good sense for the Dodgers to get into a game of sniping like the last few minutes of an Ebay auction or the folks on Price is Right bidding one dollar more than the next competitor? Would it have been somehow more acceptable if they came in at 5/80, then Texas boosted their deal to 6/90, then the Dodgers went to 6/100? Or should everyone stop at 5/75 because that's what we and the White Sox think is an acceptable offer?

And again with the length, if you're willing to take a risk on him at 37 years old, as the Sox are with a 5 year offer, are you being all that much crazier to risk him at 38? Is he likely to collapse entirely between that 5th and 6th year? At most they added one year and 1.5 million a year to the best offer. It is entirely possible that there is in fact already a previous 6 year offer on the table or coming on the table by another team.

PalehosePlanet
11-22-2007, 12:11 AM
However, the Rays also have a backlog at 3B as well with Iwamura, and Evan Longoria ready to step in.

That's true. Also they seem extremely difficult to deal with for whatever reason. Maybe they overvalue their talent, but it seems like ever since they scored Kazmir for Victor Zambrano, they've been impossible to trade with.

Sockinchisox
11-22-2007, 12:20 AM
http://www.pe.com/sports/baseball/dodgers/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_web_dodgers_22.2db84a0.html

No contract offer from the Dodgers has yet to be extended to Hunter, but the team appears ready to bid for the services of a 32-year-old slugger who would allow for weak-armed Juan Pierre to be moved to left field.This article was just put up 2 hours ago. They're (the Dodgers) meeting with Hunter on Saturday.

thomas35forever
11-22-2007, 12:30 AM
The Cubs should feel really proud of the way they altered baseball economics.

Rockabilly
11-22-2007, 12:37 AM
from what im hearing here in LA that the Dodgers are only going to offer him a 5yr deal

HebrewHammer
11-22-2007, 12:52 AM
The Cubs should feel really proud of the way they altered baseball economics.

How do you figure?

They signed Alex Rodriguez to a $275 million dollar deal??? Not Tom Hicks and the Texas Rangers?

The cubs can be blamed for many things, but the current economic situation in baseball is not one of them. This whole mess started when Scott Boras met Alex Rodriguez.

Domeshot17
11-22-2007, 12:58 AM
Dodgers don't need to meet. Torri Signed with the Angels.

fquaye149
11-22-2007, 01:13 AM
How do you figure?

They signed Alex Rodriguez to a $275 million dollar deal??? Not Tom Hicks and the Texas Rangers?

The cubs can be blamed for many things, but the current economic situation in baseball is not one of them. This whole mess started when Scott Boras met Alex Rodriguez.

A-Rod is the best player in baseball.

Soriano, Ted Lilly, and so forth, are not.

That's the main difference